How deliciously ironic that the U. S. Supreme Court would hand down, just before Independence Day, a landmark decision that effectively neuters the entire notion of individual property rights.

The fireworks already have started in response to the liberties taken by the gang of nine in tweaking one of the most fundamental cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment permits government to take private property only for "public use" and pay "just compensation."

But the high court's ruling in the case of Kelo v. City of New London last month essentially redefined "public use" to imply "public purpose."

This subtle subversion of a single Constitutional phrase will have a profound impact across the board.

A governmental power of eminent domain previously put to a litmus test of actual public need will now be subject to the whims of private-sector desire.

The ruling paves the way for even cozier relationships between elected public officials and real estate development interests who contribute to their campaigns.

Individual property owners formerly protected by the "public use" provision now face the prospect of becoming pawns sacrificed to make way for private economic development projects in the name of "public purpose," the new law of the land sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the judges ruled by a 5-4 margin that development of a mixed-use waterfront complex would serve a greater "public purpose" than preservation of a 100-year-old residence occupied by an elderly lady.

Now, thanks to the finite wisdom of five dim bulbs in dark robes, a unique homestead dripping with history could be replaced by a nifty hotel, snooty restaurant or one of those rare Starbucks coffee coves.

Aside from the champagne corks popping in real estate quarters, most early reaction to the court's Constitutional revisionism runs a very short gamut from anger to angst, along with at least one spot of serio-comic relief.

Internet Web site www.freestarmedia.com reports the following item:

A private developer is asking a small New Hampshire town council for permission to put a hotel on a tract of land owned by Justice David Souter, who cast an assenting vote.

The proposed project, called the "Lost Liberty Hotel," will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe," and copies of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" will be placed in rooms instead of Gideon Bibles.

Despite the tongue-in-cheek tone, the developer proclaims "this is not a prank."

Unfortunately, his job as CEO of something called Freestar Media (Motto: "The greatest story is the battle between freedom and force.") doesn't lend a lot of credibility to the seriousness of his cause.

Then again, those grand old American instruments of protest -- satire, sarcasm and ridicule -- sometimes represent the only recourse when supposedly judicial sages arrive at such an incredibly harebrained conclusion.

Thanks to this edict from the Konstitutional Keystone Kourt Kops, individual home owners like me have a whole new set of concerns to sweat.

Before, it was mostly a matter of having the house seized by the city as part of the site for a new sports stadium.

Another possibility was appropriation by Metro to make way for a train or bus line, depending on the transportation/transit mode du jour.

Now, I can look forward to an eviction notice stating my house would serve a higher "public purpose" serving exotic java drinks to beautiful inner-city people instead of sheltering one old buzzard who wouldn't know latte from la-dee-dah.

I'll be informed that the city has sold the deed to my domicile to Starbucks, and I have two weeks to vacate the premises before the back bedroom becomes a drive-thru.